You know what I don’t get, Freemon? There are actual socialists in this country and elsewhere. In Europe, they are a viable political faction. None of these people think that Obama is a socialist. So why do you presume to know better than they what socialism is?

I guess I shouldn’t expect a cogent response from somebody who equates respect for a President who possesses an intellect suited to the office and times with “ball-licking,” but I figure it’s worth a shot.

The man’s a narcissistic fool. His worshippers are even worse for they are ones worshiping the narcissistic fool. Er and because they actually believe these jackass socialist programs will actually improve anything……

I think there is certainly room to criticize Obama on some specific points when it comes to his dealings with Congress. Like I said above, though, it (the Senate in particular) is a broken institution. Obama tends toward Burkean conservatism in his preference for existing institutions over new ones, for better or worse. The problem of Congress may not be solveable, but it’s completely in keeping with his character to TRY to solve it.

I just don’t think not effectively managing Congress (insofar as Obama hasn’t) is a very compelling indictment of a President’s leadership ability. And I think he’s been much more firm and consistent about his priorities than any recent executive.

]]>By: F Belzhttp://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/15/when-did-the-white-house-lose-congress/comment-page-1/#comment-2780
Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:59:19 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/15/when-did-the-white-house-lose-congress/#comment-2780The big problem with Congress and Obama is that the Cap and Trade Bill is a poor way to resolve the problem. It will not work and the carbon scare is no more than a scam. Even the special interest groups have only looked at one side and very little data. Scientists can skew the data anyway they want depending upon who is paying for the work. We need to have a full discussion on the Carbon problem in an open forum. Where are the voices of the media when we need them to make sure we don’t go down the wrong path.
]]>By: Kelli Khttp://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/15/when-did-the-white-house-lose-congress/comment-page-1/#comment-2779
Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:58:55 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/15/when-did-the-white-house-lose-congress/#comment-2779@Mark

“We can condemn the violence and refuse to recognize the election results, but we can’t (and shouldn’t) do much else.”

I agree. That’s precisely what he should do. Will he? We’ll see.

“I’ll admit that it’s kind of inconvenient that he leaves so much decision-making to Congress. It’s also kind of in the Constitution.”

It’s worse than that, Mark. He doesn’t even give them guidelines. He writes them blank checks, for chrissakes. Congress!! Then, if there is even the slightest hint of resistance or trouble–take Durbin’s cram-down legislation or Obama’s “strong” leaning against torture tribunals–he caves. Just walks away. “Didn’t really want it anyway.” What kind of leadership is that? Answer: it isn’t. That’s what I’m talking about.

]]>By: Mark Rhttp://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/15/when-did-the-white-house-lose-congress/comment-page-1/#comment-2777
Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:50:15 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/15/when-did-the-white-house-lose-congress/#comment-2777Hmm, Kelli. I know public opinion polls aren’t oracular or anything, but I think you’d be hard-pressed to make the case that a President as popular as Obama “refus(es) to lead.” I think it’s fairly apparent that the stronger a President appears, the more popular he tends to be. I also thought the case against Obama from the right was that he was too heavy-handed. You know, Government Motors and all that.

I’ll admit that it’s kind of inconvenient that he leaves so much decision-making to Congress. It’s also kind of in the Constitution. Would you propose amending it to move more powers to the executive? If so, which powers? How about just scrapping the whole thing?

And what is he supposed to do about Iran? Do you have the slightest familiarity with our history there? Do you suppose an appearance that Mousavi is backed by America would be a GOOD thing for the legitimacy of his campaign? We can condemn the violence and refuse to recognize the election results, but we can’t (and shouldn’t) do much else.

By not leading. By refusing to lead. By turning over the decision making process to the headless clusterf** that is Congress.

This guy has been running around in circles since he took office giving a major speech a day on a different topic, all of them fuzzy and heart-warming, none with any specifics (at least not that anyone much likes). It is a joke.

Here’s my prediction for the day–all that Bush-hating zeal around the world will be thrown into reverse ASAP if Obama doesn’t speak out NOW about what is happening in Iran. He is a feckless jerk for leaving those brave people out in the cold. It is unworthy of this great country and W, for all his faults, would never held his tongue so that “negotiations” with a Hitlerian madman would not be “jeopardized.”

Compare the Democrats in the House to the Democrats in the Senate. The House regularly passes very progressive legislation. Then it gets to the Senate, and Ben Nelson or one of his “moderate” partners in crime sees the chance to be a hero to their conservative constituencies by demanding dramatic concessions. It’s an utterly broken system.

It’s just a numbers game. To stop a piece of legislation, you only have to scrape up 41 senators. To pass a piece of legislation, you have to amass 60 votes. Is it any wonder that the Senate is much more adept at watering down legislation and voting no than it is at voting yes? And that’s before you consider that there are 39 Republicans alongside 20 or so “moderates” who believe they benefit politically from forcing the administration to compromise.

I firmly believe that if Obama is going to be the president he clearly wanted to be, he’s going to have to figure out a way to exercise the nuclear option and kill the filibuster altogether. Call it a first strike, if you will.

]]>By: Dollaredhttp://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/15/when-did-the-white-house-lose-congress/comment-page-1/#comment-2754
Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:44:27 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/15/when-did-the-white-house-lose-congress/#comment-2754It’s not the debt, and it’s not the Republicans.

It’s about real change. Simply put, everything Obama needs to do divests the entrenched interests in this country, all of whom will sell our nation down the river while they fight to the last man (and pearl-wearing woman) to defend their stake in the old fixed game.

But the battle is unavoidable. We’ve done all the easy things possible to avoid real health care reform and real energy policy reform. Basically, neither have changed since WWII, and they are now the cancers eating our country alive.

But to change these two policies, you have to overcome the opposition of two separate groups of powerful, smart, wealthy, politically active groups: carbon fuel producers and distributors, and health care providers. In both cases, you cannot succeed unless you gore their oxen. Hard.

Now add the need to rein in the banksters due to the current crisis, and the simple, permanent opposition of the WSJ/old fart anti-labor, anti-govt crowd. Wow. You are now fighting 80-90% of all the dollars spent on politics and influence in the US.

Obama is trying to slow walk this. Get the best you can, slowly change the dials on each issue so instead of these horrible, long term, self-reinforicng trends undermining our economy, you start to replace them with postive reinforcement trends.

No chance this will work. Obama will, at some point, have to go FDR or go home.

These people need to be delegitimated. They need to be re-labeled as the “malefactors of great wealth.” Every doctor that claims that he wil shut his office if he can’t make $400k/year, every banker that squeals that it’s socialism if they can’t make a $2M bonus for hyping overvalued bonds, every coal-and-oil-state slimeball that claims that “the working man” can’t afford 10% higher energy bills or gas prices, needs to be outed as anti-American.

This is war, and unless Obama is ready to declare war, he is not going to win.

]]>By: euhttp://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/15/when-did-the-white-house-lose-congress/comment-page-1/#comment-2751
Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:17:18 +0000http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/15/when-did-the-white-house-lose-congress/#comment-2751>Obama’s agenda is going to be severely scaled back as a result.